A point on wearing plate armor

[Michcat]

makes my char the perfect candidate.




Thats not what I was saying and you know that.
The point of mentioning the wool was that it add to the weight, thus not having it in the first place will reduce the burden a bit. We are also not talking about complete negation here.


A bit better example of armor swimming (also the only other one I could find), although the armor, at least looks, lighter.

Note what his father/trainer says between 0:50 - 1:10

....

Okay, it looks like theres a few things you should know.

Japanese Samurai armour is typically lamella or similar and designed to counteract spears, arrows, and swords- The arms race in Japan was focused more on class warfare then its armour, as opposed to Medival Europe, meaning Samurai armour is SUBSTANTIALLY lighter and made out of completely different materials! Samurai armour was also made on a completely different country, on the other side of the world, with completely different resources, and structured to combat completely different threats for a completely different purpose (Killing people in a different fashion, that is). On top of that, each Japanese soldier is a LOT more likely to know how to swim. Why, do you ask? Because Japan is on an island, made up of smaller islands, where you probably want your warriors to know how to swim in case, say, your galley hit a rock - as opposed to Medieval Europe (Or even the map of Altera!); Furthermore... I don't care that they say "it would be easier if he was stronger", he still looks like hes drowning. The armour is heavy.

Lets move on to the medieval plate armour. It was designed in an arms race based on weapons (As far as my knowledge goes, I'm only researching for drawing...). The European age of platemail is not only a different era then Samurai (Knights vs. Horse Archers), but its armour was meant to stand up against things like morning stars, mauls, flails, crossbow formations, pikes... It is therefore a lot more sturdier and I still don't think you could ever conceive to swim in it.

Edit: I also don't think you could concieve to swim in any full armour set, this is why I imagine in stories/folktale/media folks are represented taking their armour off if they land in the drink.

Props to @Naelwyn for helps on details. I'm sorry, Dracon, but I really don't see this debate going anywhere. You in fact didn't even address my main points, previous argument, or pay any attention at all to what I addressed... Which was your specific instance of "Medieval European Knights swimming in Plate Armour" (Which is decidedly not "Samurai Warriors swimming in Japanese Lamella"

To sum up;

Medieval knights in armour + Swimming =

Also your video doesn't work on this website. It needs to be watched on youtube.

 

[Naelwyn]

TLDR: If you are deploying knights in full plate in a situation where they can drown, your tactics are flawed regardless and you should rethink them.

Full Plate is the medieval equivalent of a tank - it's not an amphibious assault craft.

 

[Tybalt]

TLDR: If you are deploying knights in full plate in a situation where they can drown, your tactics are flawed regardless and you should rethink them.

Full Plate is the medieval equivalent of a tank - it's not an amphibious assault craft.

While their drowning the enemy will just shoot at them when they do break surface xD

 

[Axex]

How to die in plate armour: fight anywhere that doesn't have exceptionally firm footing.

 

[DraconDarknight]

....

Okay, it looks like theres a few things you should know.

Japanese Samurai armour is typically lamella or similar and designed to counteract spears, arrows, and swords- The arms race in Japan was focused more on class warfare then its armour, as opposed to Medival Europe, meaning Samurai armour is SUBSTANTIALLY lighter and made out of completely different materials! Samurai armour was also made on a completely different country, on the other side of the world, with completely different resources, and structured to combat completely different threats for a completely different purpose (Killing people in a different fashion, that is). On top of that, each Japanese soldier is a LOT more likely to know how to swim. Why, do you ask? Because Japan is on an island, made up of smaller islands, where you probably want your warriors to know how to swim in case, say, your galley hit a rock - as opposed to Medieval Europe (Or even the map of Altera!);

According to, as mentioned, unconfirmed sources trough the internet, ~ 55 pounds for both, but I assume that referred to a plate version.

Furthermore... I don't care that they say "it would be easier if he was stronger", he still looks like hes drowning. The armour is heavy.

He would have managed to cross a river with it though. So yeah me swimming through the entire tunnel there might have been a bit OP, one river side the the other looked seems possible, yet exhausting though.

Lets move on to the medieval plate armour. It was designed in an arms race based on weapons (As far as my knowledge goes, I'm only researching for drawing...). The European age of platemail is not only a different era then Samurai (Knights vs. Horse Archers), but its armour was meant to stand up against things like morning stars, mauls, flails, crossbow formations, pikes...

100% agreed up till here.

It is therefore a lot more sturdier and I still don't think you could ever conceive to swim in it.

Edit: I also don't think you could concieve to swim in any full armour set, this is why I imagine in stories/folktale/media folks are represented taking their armour off if they land in the drink.

Yeah and the part about taking it off when crossing by swimming/drowning, in movies... I never fully understood that one, since the perfect Knight counter would be positioning yourself behind a deeper river and destroy all bridges leading to the other side then.

Props to @Naelwyn for helps on details. I'm sorry, Dracon, but I really don't see this debate going anywhere. You in fact didn't even address my main points, previous argument, or pay any attention at all to what I addressed... Which was your specific instance of "Medieval European Knights swimming in Plate Armour" (Which is decidedly not "Samurai Warriors swimming in Japanese Lamella"

Honestly, I tried to but deleted it, since my last physics class was ways back in ~ 2004, I suck at math, and notably would have failed both math and physics back then (like the remaining 22/30 people in that class, but k that school was known for more than half dropping out in the first semester >>). So I started out with looking at it from a displacement angle and deleted it halfway through. While maybe not entirely incorrect probably unfitting since we weren't talking about ships.
But yes I am aware of the principle that to stay afloat you need to displace at least as much water as the object you want to float weights.

Also your video doesn't work on this website. It needs to be watched on youtube.

yea I realised that , after posting it.:/

While their drowning the enemy will just shoot at them when they do break surface xD

The swimming aside, its not as easy to penetrate armor as you think it is, especially not with a bow.

I'll repost the video of a 15th century crossbow vs an breastplate, I posted a few pages earlier, and note they were trying armor piercing ons too here:

Note how most of them just bounce off it, only 1 or two of them would have inflicted a feel able wound and that one can easily be avoided with a chain mail or a thick leather jacket below.
Even without the leather jacket though, none of them looked like they would have been deadly, aside maybe from metal poisoning.

There is also one of a longbow and bodkin arrows which don't really have more success somewhere on youtube btw. Also note that said test was done within a longbows effective range.

 

[Michcat]

yeah that sorta stint was probably a bit OP bro

 

[DraconDarknight]

Yeah too late to change it though - was way back at the start of the last campaign >>

 

[MRPolo13]

Boy... here we go.

Yes, you can swim in plate armour. It's really as simple as that. You can. There was an olympic swimmer that tried to, and although a lot more difficult, it's possible.
You can argue that, since modern soldiers can swim with heavier gear, Medieval men at arms would have few issues too.

But, there are always variables no one takes into consideration. Swimming in plate armour weighs you down, perhaps not because of the plates themselves, but you usually wear a woolen gambeson underneath. Wool has a tendency to gain an awful lot of weight when soaked. Also, there are a lot of gaps that can trap water in plate armour. Another thing I don't think anyone takes into consideration is currents. They can be dangerous for anyone, especially if you have 30 kilograms of metal, leather and materials strapped to your body.

I don't think a tactic should revolve around people swimming in plate armour. That's foolish... But, if you have to cross a small river or a stream, or something with little current, you're probably quite safe even without a horse to carry you across.

 

[Tybalt]

According to, as mentioned, unconfirmed sources trough the internet, ~ 55 pounds for both, but I assume that referred to a plate version.



He would have managed to cross a river with it though. So yeah me swimming through the entire tunnel there might have been a bit OP, one river side the the other looked seems possible, yet exhausting though.


100% agreed up till here.



Yeah and the part about taking it off when crossing by swimming/drowning, in movies... I never fully understood that one, since the perfect Knight counter would be positioning yourself behind a deeper river and destroy all bridges leading to the other side then.



Honestly, I tried to but deleted it, since my last physics class was ways back in ~ 2004, I suck at math, and notably would have failed both math and physics back then (like the remaining 22/30 people in that class, but k that school was known for more than half dropping out in the first semester >>). So I started out with looking at it from a displacement angle and deleted it halfway through. While maybe not entirely incorrect probably unfitting since we weren't talking about ships.
But yes I am aware of the principle that to stay afloat you need to displace at least as much water as the object you want to float weights.


yea I realised that , after posting it.:/



The swimming aside, its not as easy to penetrate armor as you think it is, especially not with a bow.

I'll repost the video of a 15th century crossbow vs an breastplate, I posted a few pages earlier, and note they were trying armor piercing ons too here:

Note how most of them just bounce off it, only 1 or two of them would have inflicted a feel able wound and that one can easily be avoided with a chain mail or a thick leather jacket below.
Even without the leather jacket though, none of them looked like they would have been deadly, aside maybe from metal poisoning.

There is also one of a longbow and bodkin arrows which don't really have more success somewhere on youtube btw. Also note that said test was done within a longbows effective range.

Well, the man could barely get his head out the water, so I think they wouldn't be shooting at his torso

 

[DraconDarknight]

Well, the man could barely get his head out the water, so I think they wouldn't be shooting at his torso

There are several other ones where they also bounce off helmets .
Knights are supposed to be killed by close range combat. The part of the idea idea behind them was striking fear into the enemy by walking around with the arrows sticking out of them as if they were immortal.

 

[Gregor]

Besides this all of being possible, swimming is /really/ bad for your armour.

There are several other ones where they also bounce off helmets .
Knights are supposed to be killed by close range combat. The part of the idea idea behind them was striking fear into the enemy by walking around with the arrows sticking out of them as if they were immortal.

People underestimate mail way way too much.

Not only in the sense of the protection it offers, but also the cost.
Mail was often more expensive than a plate cuirass yo.
Also, in the crusades where the knights wore mail, they were often described as pincushions with arrows sticking out of them, seemingly unfazed.

 

[DraconDarknight]

Besides this all of being possible, swimming is /really/ bad for your armour.

Yeah I know, in my opinion the reason why there aren't more videos of people at least attempting it.

People underestimate mail way way too much.

Not only in the sense of the protection it offers, but also the cost.
Mail was often more expensive than a plate cuirass yo.
Also, in the crusades where the knights wore mail, they were often described as pincushions with arrows sticking out of them, seemingly unfazed.

That too. mail shirts below plate armor were pretty certain to stop arrows for good.
You don't even need them though, according to that crossbow test a 2.6 mm thick leather jacket would have offered 100% protection already.

As Nael stated earlier, Knights were supposed to be walking tanks, dying after just one arrow/bolt would defeat the point.

 

[Tybalt]

Besides this all of being possible, swimming is /really/ bad for your armour.


People underestimate mail way way too much.

Not only in the sense of the protection it offers, but also the cost.
Mail was often more expensive than a plate cuirass yo.
Also, in the crusades where the knights wore mail, they were often described as pincushions with arrows sticking out of them, seemingly unfazed.

Needle point bodkins yo. I get the fact that Atmor was worn for. Reason , to protect, but if arrows were not effective against anything then why did they keep using them and why was he English longbow and Mongal recite feared?

 

[Gregor]

Needle point bodkins yo. I get the fact that Atmor was worn for. Reason , to protect, but if arrows were not effective against anything then why did they keep using them and why was he English longbow and Mongal recite feared?

The bows that were used against crusaders weren't that strong.

But not everyone has a english 160 pound draw weight warbow that they have trained all their life to use.
The point was to kill people without armour and cause panic, people rarely died in combat anyways, it only got bloody when one side started routing and getting killed on the retreat.
The danger wasn't single arrows, but the sheer volume and terror of the volleys.

The problem was also the horse that wasn't designed to tkae that kind of punishment, unlike their rider. After Azincourt barding started spreading and was improved (Hence the boom of the power of the heavy cavalry around this time period) . Against sustained longbow volleys (and unable to charge from the rain and stakes), the horses were just targets, and armored knights are hopelessly slow on foot.

 

[JustTooRadical]

Best method against fullbodied knights- Throw a molotov cocktail at 'em.

 

[Tybalt]

The bows that were used against crusaders weren't that strong.

But not everyone has a english 160 pound draw weight warbow that they have trained all their life to use.
The point was to kill people without armour and cause panic, people rarely died in combat anyways, it only got bloody when one side started routing and getting killed on the retreat.
The danger wasn't single arrows, but the sheer volume and terror of the volleys.

The problem was also the horse that wasn't designed to tkae that kind of punishment, unlike their rider. After Azincourt barding started spreading and was improved (Hence the boom of the power of the heavy cavalry around this time period) . Against sustained longbow volleys (and unable to charge from the rain and stakes), the horses were just targets, and armored knights are hopelessly slow on foot.

Still,Needle bodkins are effective on mail, and even if an arrow doesn't penetrate the armor, it's going to leave a deformation and hurt. I doubt getting shot in the head with an arrow is going to feel good. It might even knock you out and you drown faster.

You may not know, but a warhorse kick can kill a fully plated knight of struck in the head. So I figure an arrow won't feel to good either

 

[Gregor]

Still,Needle bodkins are effective on mail, and even if an arrow doesn't penetrate the armor, it's going to leave a deformation and hurt. I doubt getting shot in the head with an arrow is going to feel good. It might even knock you out and you drown faster.

You may not know, but a warhorse kick can kill a fully plated knight of struck in the head.

Well, I know about the warhorse part because I. . . said that in the thread.
And yes, they were effective against mail, but my point was that mail was expensive and offered good protection as well.

 

[Tybalt]

Well, I know about the warhorse part because I. . . said that in the thread.
And yes, they were effective against mail, but my point was that mail was expensive and offered good protection as well.

But not, arrow protection. It provides protection from slashes. Use the right too for the right job mate

 

[Gregor]

But not, arrow protection. It provides protection from slashes. Use the right too for the right job mate

Offers reasonable protection against arrows, its just that archery evolved against that, and plate was the answer to that.

 

[MRPolo13]

Besides this all of being possible, swimming is /really/ bad for your armour.


People underestimate mail way way too much.

Not only in the sense of the protection it offers, but also the cost.
Mail was often more expensive than a plate cuirass yo.
Also, in the crusades where the knights wore mail, they were often described as pincushions with arrows sticking out of them, seemingly unfazed.

Crusades ended in 13th century, the Third Crusade, with Richard the Lionheart and all that jazz, took place in 12th. In those times combat was vastly different compared to 14th and, especially, 15th century. While mail was expensive before, you have to remember that most Orders could afford to equip their members with such protection. Even though these holy Orders did have an awful large amount of money, they still wouldn't equip their men at arms with such armour if it really was that expensive. By, say, 14th century, mail was pretty much mass produced. More importantly, it could have been made of worse materials than a cuirass, and was not any more expensive. To make a cuirass you needed to know a thing or two about steel and its treatment as well as how to actually curve it out. For mail all you had to know is how to attach five links together and rivet them.

Crusaders faced Arabic archers, whose bows were pretty crap no matter how we look at it, especially in comparison to an English Longbow which could pretty easily go through mail. It's not perhaps that the technology developed, but merely that the areas of fighting changed.